Monday, January 10, 2011

The Murderous Impulses of the Left

This weekend I was reminded of the joke about the Jew who liked Nazi rhetoric, because it made him feel like a big shot -- after all, Jews own the banks, rule the media, control Hollywood, and generally run the world.

There have already been any number of definitive analyses of the left's exploitation of the Arizona shootings, so I don't want to repeat them; cf. here, here, here, and here. Is there anything else to say except that one should never be surprised at the moral rot of the left? This is what they do. Since they they know as well as anyone that they cannot win on the merits, their first and last resort is always to defame, to smear, and to demonize.

If we limit ourselves to conscious motivations, then Glenn Reynolds is correct in saying that there are really only two explanations for such disgusting behavior on part of the left: they are either "(a) asserting a connection between the 'rhetoric' and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) [they're] not, in which case [they're] just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?"

But there is a third alternative, which is that they actually do believe what they are saying. That the left is morally insane is not controversial. To embrace moral relativism is ultimately to affirm that no act is forbidden, that there is no transcendent source of morality, and that we are not held accountable for our actions. Which is why one can never accuse a leftist of hypocrisy, since it is impossible for a true nihilist to be a hypocrite.

We will not review our many posts that explain how and why the ideology of leftism is animated by hatred and envy. But because of this, it is impossible for the leftist to handle the cognitive dissonance that is generated between two diametrically opposed psychic realities. On the one hand, the leftist is no different than anyone else, in that he has a reservoir of hatred, greed, irrational thinking, prejudices, etc.

However, the leftist regards himself as morally superior, to such an extent that he deems himself worthy and capable of ruling over all the other unenlightened and morally inferior beings who are greedy, irrational, power-hungry, etc. The conservative is not sanguine about human nature, beginning with his own. But the leftist denies human nature, beginning with his own.

How can such beautiful souls as Barney Frank, Paul Krugman, Keith Olbermann, or Nancy Pelosi be animated by anything less than the most lofty and selfless goals? Easy. They cannot be. Therefore, what is denied in themselves must be projected into others, which is where conservatives come in.

For the left, conservatism is, was, and always will be a convenient repository for their own psychic projections. Many commenters have noticed that if you really want to know what's going on in the leftist's mind, just take note what they condemn in others. This is axiomatic.

In the case of the Arizona shootings, what is the left projecting? From the moment information about the murderer's preoccupations became available, it was evident to me that he suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, and I will be very surprised if that is not the final verdict. Suffice it to say that the paranoid schizophrenic is not in contact with what we call reality, and that their motivations emanate from a tangle of irrational impulses, fears, obsessions, hallucinations, and delusions.

So at this point, there is obviously no rational basis whatsoever to attribute the murderer's actions to anything other than severe mental illness (and perhaps to the people around him who ignored or enabled it). Note that the left is irrationally using this irrational person in order to insert their own peculiar preoccupations, and furnish him with an understandable motivation: he murdered because he was animated by conservative ideas and principles.

What this actually means is that these murderous impulses are indeed real, except that they are first in the mind of the leftist. The left is in a state of perpetual rage at conservatives, even more so than usual since last year's election. To put it simply, we drive them nuts with anger. They would like to kill, but their beautiful self image prevents them from recognizing and owning their own rage. Therefore they must project it into others: into Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbaugh, or Sarah Palin, or this insane criminal.

Or me. I am well aware of the fact that I provoke intense anger in our trolls, which is instantaneously projected into me, and transformed into hatred to which they feel compelled to react. In other words, I become the spurious "cause" of their anger and hatred.

Contemporary liberalism (i.e., leftism, not classical liberalism) is not just accidentally but intrinsically wrong. It is wrong not just in this or that elaboration of its principles and policies, but in its very substance. As such, it's like trying to use defective bricks to erect a building, or magical thinking as the basis of science. When your first principles are in error, then everything entailed in those principles will also be in error. To put it another way, it really is possible to be rotten to the core.

Schuon is never explicitly political, but he frequently slips in a page-stopping observation that is pregnant with political implications. It would be strictly impossible to be a student of his and also be a leftist, just as it would be impossible for any seriously religious person to be a leftist.

Not that there aren't religious leftists (indeed, leftism is a political religion). It's just that their values are deeply at odds with perennial truth, and when push comes to shove, it is clear that they derive their values from ideology and not religion; or, if from religion, they deeply misunderstand its esoteric and often even plain meaning. Rather, they simply use religion as a vehicle to advance their political agenda, an agenda that is rooted in ungoverned feeling. Everyone knows this, which is why Democrat candidates are so awkward and unnatural when they talk about religion.

Metaphysical truths, in order to be effective, must become operative in the will. Thus, to transfer responsibility for a dimly perceived spiritual truth to the state is to render it inoperative, since it relieves man of having to be personally conscious of the principle.

Leftists flatter themselves by imagining they "speak truth to power," when they actually promulgate seductive lies to the powerless in order to keep them that way (and to keep voting Democrat). After all, it isn't as if the simple behavioral principles for avoiding poverty aren't well understood. But since they require the cultivation of certain timeless virtues -- and don't allow the sentimental liberal to feel good about himself -- the liberal isn't interested.

Is there a single leftist who understands the following principle?: "Too great an indulgence toward others is often caused not by an innate weakness of character but by an actual inability to conceive the frailty of men and the malice of the devil" (Schuon). And the reason they cannot conceive of the frailty of men is that it would require too much painful self-examination. They'd rather project it into others. On the one hand they project a weak and pathetic part of themselves into "the poor." And they project an angry and controlling part into "the rich."

One immediately thinks of the Hollywood left, who project their deep character flaws into those they presume to rescue, which then absolves them of the need to root out their own frailties and rise above themselves. But "to take fallen man as the human norm is to end up idealizing not man but the human animal, the thinking beast" (ibid). This is why no one is more anti-human than a humanist, for they undermine man's sufficient reason for being, not to mention his rootedness in the transcendent.

A Bill Clinton embodies the qualities of earthly intelligence and oily charm; or cunning and seduction; or calculation and hypnosis. As Harvey Mansfeld wrote, he is "the envy of vulgar men," and deservedly so.

But as Schuon explains, cunning is no more a normal mode of intelligence than paranoia is a normal mode of perception. The latter is not perception but apperception, i.e., the systematic confirmation of one's own projected thoughts and impulses. Leftists know what motivated the Arizona murderer, which is a roundabout way of saying they unconsciously know their own motivations.

39 Comments:

Well yes, from one point of view this is all true, but have you actually considered the notion of evil pure and simple?

I fear that the language of psychology quickly reduces to psycho babble and thus a lack of clarity.

Prince of lies and all that.

Much of this is not so much a matter of projection as it is a matter of embracing darkness.

You seem to think that if only one could get them to "face" their "projections" these folks could be "cureed" and that this whole matter might be resolved.

But the real "left" expressed through their propaganda masters are not projecting--they merely wish to seduce those who would do so. It is a much deeper matter than "Psychology" which assumes after all normative human type and then seek to resolve aberrations against it.

Is this really the case here? Is it really what you are even talking about religiously and philosophically?

I think you talk about a modality, an attribute, a role or a condition of man, not a normative type and pathology.

There is such an thing as evil. There are people who willfully embrace it.

Great post, Bob.I believe Jesus makes reference to the importance of first principles when parabling about houses built on sand.

Anywise, at the risk of sounding paranoid meself, I couldn't help noticing how quickly was dug-up Palin's website image. You know the one. When I first saw the news about the shooting (10am est?) it was accompanied by mention of Palin's site. Who would remember such a thing? Especially when you consider the short memory of the typical dem. Do knee-jerk projections travel at the speed of light? I suppose so.I don't know...I certainly agree with your diagnosis. But there are a couple things that seem additionally fishy.

Rush makes the important point that since the majority of Americans have conservative values, the state and its media are indicting normal Americans for murder. You are the state's enemy, even if the state is not your enemy.

"...it is clear that they derive their values from ideology and not religion; or, if from religion, they deeply misunderstand its esoteric and often even plain meaning."

Hence Socialists and Communists who steadfastly claim that's what Jesus was all about.

Last week I mentioned having a friendly debate amongst family over the holidays. One of the overarching points that struck me, though I didn't have a chance to address it at the time, was that my opponent began her initial statement by declaring that "people" should or shouldn't be allowed to do certain things. "People" should live more simply. There are too many people (and therefore it's not right for them to reproduce beyond certain limits). People should care more about biodiversity.

She doesn't realize the implications of any of these ideas; they certainly aren't taught that in her biology master's program. At one point she accused me of being idealistic, while espousing a belief that if only the right constraints were placed on human behavior, biodiversity would flourish.

The first impulse of leftist thought is always to dictate limits on the lives of others, with the accompanying assumption either that one's own life is somehow the ideal, that the dictator should somehow be allowed to live outside of the rules, or that the same rules will act as an outside control that would redress the leftist's own failure to live up to his ideals.

The fact that it backfires virtually every time is never a deterrent; that would require seeing things as they are, not as they might be "if only...".

All true and astute, Bob, and to me it raises the related issue of the left's enslavement as a source of its hatred.

St. Augustine points out that freedom is the opportunity to choose the Good, which implies recognition of and obedience to the broader reality.

Since contemporary liberals are either indifferent to what is true and good or are overtly rejecting of it in favor of defining such terms for themselves, it seems to me that they must therefore be slaves to these and other sins and have no option but to rage against the "machine".

It's disheartening to see such soul-sickness on display. Almost like the event itself was an anti-poultice, drawing up and feeding the worst in all those whose faith in politics supersedes any sense of human decency.

You can also see how it's all being played out in the realm of pure fantasy, which is why it provides such a transparent window into the dark soul of the left. The only contribution is coming from their own minds, so it's an unusually clear opportunity to witness the phenomenon of projection.

Heh - from that post, I like this point:" It also would create the ironic situation where the government could create a prior restraint on political speech by banning the use of crosshairs or bullseyes when the plain meaning isn’t violence, but where their use on actual shooting targets would still be allowed. What’s next, the banning of dart boards?"

By that logic, Target stores would have to change both their name and their logo. And just think of all those awful commercials with targets on things - why do they hate shopping carts and grocery bags?!

I usually maintain that there exists "Objective Hope" for all humans, having been created in the Image of God -- of course, how that actually manifests (results) may vary. But I've seen evidence of internal growth, of clarity and understanding in some people, and consider it to be way more than just a theory.

On the other hand ... regarding peoples "rotten to the core," I'm not so sure.

When producing crops of plants, there were times when we'd discover that whole sections of plants that outwardly looked healthy, were actually rotting internally. (This usually occurred in Springtime, attributable to some sort of freakish weather.) Despite the outward appearance of normalcy, you knew that the rot never stopped, and that the plants would die -- usually, "all of a sudden," like a wilt. We learned from experience that plants with rotten cores could only be thrown away.

Is there any parallel with humans? How deep must the rot grow before it just destroys a person inside? I still cling to the sense that a human is able to awaken out of an internal rot, but that may depend on how deep it runs.

"The notion that the killer acted according to some political logic existed only in the minds of people like Fitzsimmons and Krugman. It was pure fantasy, and it turned out not to correspond with reality. Yet many on the left, including in the mainstream media, are treating this fantasy as if it were fact, or at least a legitimate point of view."

I love Dr. Sanity. In her comments on the same post is the following exchange:

Jeff: So you think it was okay for Sarah Palin and her cohorts to use gun imagery every chance they got? Yes, or no?

If you won't answer this, you're sidestepping the main issue here.

drsanity: Number one: this is not the main issue here at all. Number two: so it is now politically incorrect to use the wrong 'imagery'? Well I can shoot down that theory, I think and it should be killed dead. You happen to be way off target and not near the bullseye at all. Maybe you should reload and fire again, dolt.

I feel compelled to urge caution in interpreting Hillary's statement. Maybe she used air quotes when she said extremist and was referring to the high incidence of Paranoid Schizophrenia among suicide bombers.

"There have already been any number of definitive analyses of the left's exploitation of the Arizona shootings, so I don't want to repeat them; cf. here, here, here, and here. Is there anything else to say except that one should never be surprised at the moral rot of the left?"

From the Sec'o State article, this is why Capt Obvious gets the big bucks:

"..we should work to try to prevent the extremists anywhere from being able to commit violence."

I agree. Except I might improve on that a little by saying we should work really, really hard, or at least really hard. And this is why I keep saying we should be working on the time machine. Everything else is a waste of time.

GB - "Yet many on the left, including in the mainstream media, are treating this fantasy as if it were fact, or at least a legitimate point of view."

They are just attempting to give it as much legitimacy as conservatism has - at least in their own minds.

It's an old tactic: subvert what you hate and elevate what is despicable until you can achieve enough equilibrium to bind them together. After that, you can stand back and watch them both sink. (see multiculturalism)

Thanks, Bob. I'll check that out.Which reminds me, did you ever regret a purchase from Sophia Perennis Press? Even a little?Actually, let me put it this way. Have you ever seen a crummy book published there?

The teacher Aivanhov was comfortable with the notion of 'demon-possession'[i surmise these= older brother to Bob's 'mind parasites']--invisible bloodthirsty entities that can be welcomed into one by the doors/abuses of sex, intoxication, violence.

murderers like JLL seem to fit this simple but media-shunned explanation to a T

Links to this post:

About Me

Location: Floating in His Cloud-Hidden Bobservatory, Inside the Centers for Spiritual Disease Control and Pretension, Tonga

Who?! spirals down the celestial firepole on wings of slack, seizes the wheel of the cosmic bus, and embarks upin a bewilderness adventure of higher nondoodling? Who, haloed be his gnome, loiters on the threshold of the transdimensional doorway, looking for handouts from Petey? Who, with his doppelgägster and testy snideprick, Cousin Dupree, wields the pliers and blowtorch of fine insultainment for the ridicure of assouls? Who is the gentleman loaffeur who yoinks the sword from the stoned philosopher and shoves it in the breadbasket of metaphysical ignorance and tenure? Whose New Testavus for the Restavus blows the locked doors of the empyrean off their rusty old hinges and sheds a beam of intense darkness on the world enigma? Who is the Biggest Fakir of the Vertical Church of God Knows What, channeling the roaring torrent of 〇 into the feeble stream of cyberspace? Who is the masked pandit who lobs the first water balloon out the motel window at the annual Raccoon convention? Shut your mouth! But I'm talkin' about bʘb! Then we can dig it!